Question: Can one implead oneself in another person's RTI request CIC hearing?

[murgie]

In my request for FII data from SEBI for academic research, SEBI told CIC at an
appeal hearing that it simply did not have the data, and needed to collect the
data from custodial institutions (e.g. banks). In another request (involving one
Abhishek Chowdhary and reported in
http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c_online.php?leftnm=10&bKeyFla\
g=IN&autono=39405)
SEBI appears to have said it has the data but needs to get permission from the
custodians to release the data.

I do not know the details of Abhishek Chowdhary's RTI request for FII data. But
clearly SEBI has told him and me different things about whether it has the FII
data, in the presence of the same IC Shri AN Tiwari. Both requests are currently
in roughly the same stage - remanded to SEBI for de novo hearing (in my case I
have just filed a fresh complaint u/s 18(1)e).

Since the CIC does not appear to have good institutional memory of SEBI's
different submissions, and is unable to distinguish between different types of
RTI requests to SEBI for FII data (those that seek FII identity data vs those
that don't; real-time data vs stale data) I feel it would help the CIC and us
if, say, I could implead myself as an interested third party, given my RTI
request to SEBI for FII data, even in the Abhishek Chowdhary case.

QUESTION: Is
this possible? Has something like this been done before? Thanks. Best,

Murgie

PS - Fuller details of the document history of my RTI request to SEBI for FII
data is available from the DIRECTORY section of this site:
RTI Directory

[karira]

Murgie,

As per the RTI Act, a "third party" can be anyone except the citizen applying for information.

In your case, you have a strong case to ask for "impleading" yourself since the subject matter of both the RTI Applications is nearly the same and SEBI seems to have messed up the two replies to the two different applicants.

Your arguments make a lot of sense.

Two VERY RELEVANT orders of CIC that I can think of are:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_19042006.pdf

“In the meantime a request has also been received on April 17 from Er
Sarbajit Roy of Defence Colony, Delhi asking that he be impleaded as a third
party, being a registered third party in the PMO whose case was transferred to the Ministry of Water Resources together with that of Shekhar Singh……..”

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_03032008_03.pdf

We have subsequently received an application of 18.1.08 from Er Sarbajit Roy of Defence Colony, New Delhi and on 20.2.2008 from Ms. Poonam Prakash requesting that they may be impleaded in this complaint. These requests for impleadment, however, challenge the authenticity of information provided and seek further disclosure whereas the plea of complainant Ms. Gita Dewan Verma is simply a plea for directions to Ministry of Urban Development to comply with the requirements of sec. 4(1) (b), (c) & (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. We have received a further submission of 14.2.08 from complainant Ms. Gita Dewan Verma emphasizing this in praying as follows:

“I request my prayer in Complaint dated1.1.2008 be allowed and also that Delhi Division be directed to, for each of its Notification dated 7.2.08:
publish Corrigenda with all relevant facts for compliance of Sec. 4(1)( c) and
Provide me under Sec.4 (1) (d) the reasons for rejections of my submissions.”

Further impleadment at this stage will only prolong a decision in a case which to our mind is forthright and eminently disposable, and which has been instituted with a specific plea of urgency.

Personally I feel you can very well "implead" yourself.

[opsharma]

[quote=murgie;17082]In my request for FII data from SEBI for academic research, SEBI told CIC at an
appeal hearing that it simply did not have the data, and needed to collect the
data from custodial institutions (e.g. banks). In another request (involving one
Abhishek Chowdhary and reported in
http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c_online.php?leftnm=10&bKeyFla\
g=IN&autono=39405)
SEBI appears to have said it has the data but needs to get permission from the
custodians to release the data.


In Chowdhry's case also SEBI was not sure whether Data was centrally available anywhere .(CIC/AT/A/2007/01554 dated3/05/2008) is available on this site .

"SEBI was not clear whether the information as requested by the appellant is centrally available and whether it is made available regularly to the Government, Reserve Bank as well as Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB)."

[murgie]

[quote=opsharma;17096]

Originally Posted by murgie

In my request for FII data from SEBI for academic research, SEBI told CIC at an
appeal hearing that it simply did not have the data, and needed to collect the
data from custodial institutions (e.g. banks). In another request (involving one
Abhishek Chowdhary and reported in
http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c_online.php?leftnm=10&bKeyFla\
g=IN&autono=39405)
SEBI appears to have said it has the data but needs to get permission from the
custodians to release the data.


In Chowdhry's case also SEBI was not sure whether Data was centrally available anywhere .(CIC/AT/A/2007/01554 dated3/05/2008) is available on this site .

"SEBI was not clear whether the information as requested by the appellant is centrally available and whether it is made available regularly to the Government, Reserve Bank as well as Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB)."

This is unambiguously garbage, not unusual for SEBI. Go to the DIRECTORY section and study a document I've included called "Reporting Guidelines for FII Transactions," a SEBI document. It tells us that SEBI has all the data with it that it needs to respond positively to ALL of the FII data requests made to it. Best, -Murgie

[opsharma]

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
…..
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/01554
Dated, the 30th May, 2008.
Appellant
:
Shri Abhishek Chowdhury
Respondents
:
Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
This second-appeal by Shri Abhishek Chowdhury came up for hearing on 22.05.2008, following the Commission’s hearing notice dated 01.04.2008, when the appellant was present in person and the respondents were represented by Shri D.Ravikumar, CGM and Shri J. Shandilya, AGM.
2. During the hearing, it emerged that the appellant’s main query spelt-out in his RTI-application dated 22/26.06.2007 is about investment made by each Foreign Institutional Investor (FII) in India. The information requested by him was “yearly net investment figures as on March 2007, March 2006 and March 2005 for each FII (In both Debt and Equity)”.
3. The respondents denied this information to the appellant citing exemption under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
4. However, the respondents during the hearing were not able to produce before the Commission any decision of the SEBI, in its capacity as a Capital Market Regulator, that the information as requested by the appellant should not be disclosed. It was also not clear whether SEBI has examined the practices prevalent in other countries about disclosing such information about FIIs. Nothing has been stated as to how disclosure of this information would be injurious to the economy of the India, which would attract Section 8(1)(a). Although the information is admittedly third-party information, those parties were not heard mainly because their number runs into over 800. The domestic entity in which the Foreign Institutional Investment is received is also a necessary third-party. SEBI was not clear whether the information as requested by the appellant is centrally available and whether it is made available regularly to the Government, Reserve Bank as well as Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB).
5. Commission feels that this is a matter which needs thorough examination in consultation with all stake-holders for determining whether the requested information is disclosable. It also needs to be examined, whether regardless of all the exemptions under the RTI Act, there is public interest under Section 8(2) to disclose this information.
Page 2 of 2
6. This exercise is best done by the AA, who as an officer of the SEBI, can examine the matter closely in terms of extant practices / instructions, consult all, or a section of, stake-holders, examine international practices, and obtain views of top functionaries in the field and in government, before formulating response to the appellant’s request. Matter is accordingly remitted back to the Appellate Authority, Shri T.C. Nair, for de-novo consideration. In view of the fact that the number of third-parties in this case runs to over 800, the AA may choose to call for hearing certain representatives of all third-parties, selecting them from samples of large, medium and small investors and, pass a speaking order about each aspect of the matter as mentioned at para 5 of this order.
7. This may be completed within 2 months from the date of the receipt of this order. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
8. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –
Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH )
Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar

[opsharma]

Last 3 lines of para 4 of above post 5 ,was what I quoted " " in my post 3 -CIC Decision.
I do appreciate your concern .

[murgie]

Originally Posted by opsharma

Last 3 lines of para 4 of above post 5 ,was what I quoted " " in my post 3 -CIC Decision.
I do appreciate your concern .

I knew you were citing SEBI's claim before the CIC. The minor difference between this FII request and mine is that Abhishek Chowdhary wants annual aggregates by FII. Whether he actually wants FII identity, or will be satisfied by a dummy ID for each FII, is not clear from the CIC ruling: that could be a major difference. It is still very clear that SEBI has represented differently about availability of FII data before the same IC Tiwari, during his hearing and mine. The plain language in the CIC ruling in my case against SEBI makes it clear that IC-T then thought, as I did, that SEBI simply did not have the data with it, because of what the SEBI CPIO told us during the hearing. Best, -Murgie